Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What does Belgrade have to do with anything?

Probably the fact that Russia considers the NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war an act of aggression and interference in the affairs of another sovereign state.

To be fair, it totally was, but for good reason.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

Gotta agree with you, Russia's behaviour doesn't change the fact that "the West" has screwed the pooch on multiple occasions.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

Kiev was the capital of the first unified Russian state. Russians and Ukrainians are practically one people, and Russia and Ukraine have been one country since pretty much forever. Russia's nose definitely belongs in Ukraine.

Kanluwen wrote:What does Belgrade have to do with anything?

Well...

Let's start at that it was a direct, illegal act of agression by NATO against an independent sovereign nation and ally of Russia not at war with any NATO member.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Probably the fact that Russia considers the NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war an act of aggression and interference in the affairs of another sovereign state.

To be fair, it totally was, but for good reason.

Serbia also basically went out if its way to piss people off after they already were almost content to ignore the situation.

Serbia has something of a history of pulling the tails of lions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

This is becoming a circular argument.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.

Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

Hey, it's not NATOs fault that all those ex-East bloc countries apparently felt safer as a part of NATO than of some alliance with Russia.

If Russia didn't want NATO to be popular amongst its former "allies" and within its "sphere of influence" then maybe it shouldn't have oppressed that sphere for 50 years.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.

Because it's the American way.
And Russia so want's to be like America.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve.

Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.

Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.

Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.

Because those states wanted to join NATO? It's not like NATO invaded them. They went out of their way to seek membership. That's not a "push" into someone else's sphere of influence, and, by that point, it can no longer be considered part of that sphere anyway if they're both in a position where they can, and want, do join NATO.

Now, to be fair, some of "the west", and the US in particular, have done some absolutely stupid and short-sighted things with regards to relations with Russia, in part just because they could be done. There's no denying that, and such have obviously not been helpful. However, lets not make it out like Russia was a saint either, and it has gone out of its way to repeatedly and publicly turn down many opportunities to improve relations and better integrate with Europe as a whole.

To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.

NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

Except nobody for the last 15 years (until early 2014 anyway) in the West considered it such anymore. It was far more a general security cooperative amongst Euro-American allies most often seeing use against asymmetrical threats and stability issues within Europe and in the Middle-East rather than against Russia. The fact that European nations even floated the idea of having Russia join NATO (and subsequently rebuffed by Russia) should be plenty of indication that NATO was being viewed and utilized in a different role.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Belgrade says ''hi''.


Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.

Which has always struck me as odd, considering the openly neo nazi government there.


I mean, seriously, genocide is good unless it's non-jewish Russians? Because that's what I'm carrying away from this comparison.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.

The West does not want to destroy Russia, it just wants Russia to be not a rival to its interests. The West thought it could control Russia and keep it down through supporting the Jeltsin mafia. It could not.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.

NATO did not have to accept those countries.
Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.

Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve.

Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.

Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.

So? Russia's army is only a shade of the power of the Red Army. Its logical Europe's armies became smaller too.
And what gigantic non-state assymetrical threats did NATO face that required a full defensive military alliance? Did the US really need the rest of NATO to fight a bunch of Afghan goat herders? And why did NATO expand eastwards despite promises not to, if not to contain Russia?
If NATO is not a threat to Russia, than why is it doing such a great job at looking like one?

BaronIveagh wrote:

Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.

Because those states wanted to join NATO? It's not like NATO invaded them. They went out of their way to seek membership. That's not a "push" into someone else's sphere of influence, and, by that point, it can no longer be considered part of that sphere anyway if they're both in a position where they can, and want, do join NATO.

Now, to be fair, some of "the west", and the US in particular, have done some absolutely stupid and short-sighted things with regards to relations with Russia, in part just because they could be done. There's no denying that, and such have obviously not been helpful. However, lets not make it out like Russia was a saint either, and it has gone out of its way to repeatedly and publicly turn down many opportunities to improve relations and better integrate with Europe as a whole.

Like what?
Russians were all enthousiastic about the West back when the USSR fell. Russia was completely willing to become part of the West and adopt capitalism.
But all capitalism and the West gave Russia was a complete collapse of society. Incompetent leaders destroyed everything, and the West just stood by and cheered Yeltsin on, meanwhile bombing Serbia, supporting terrorism and seperatism in Russian and former Soviet territories and generally closing in on historical Russian interests everywhere. This betrayal changed Putin from the pro-West guy he once was into very much anti-West, and it also destroyed the positive view of the West with most other Russians. You are dismissing it as the West having done some stupid things that have not been helpful. It is much, much worse than that. The West was the enemy during Soviet times, but unlike now it was never hated by the ordinary people. The amount of hostility to the West in all parts of Russian society is something completely new. I'll leave you to figure out how adoration changed into hatred so quickly.

Even if the West did not have the intentions, it appeared to the Russians that they took every opportunity to take Russia down. The West should be less self-righteous and more sensitive about Russian feelings.
It does not matter if the Baltic states asked for membership or not. NATO made a huge mistake in accepting it.

BaronIveagh wrote:To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.

Does the situation change if the 'loner kid' is one of the strongest kids in school and has a nuclear bomb?

BaronIveagh wrote:

NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

Except nobody for the last 15 years (until early 2014 anyway) in the West considered it such anymore. It was far more a general security cooperative amongst Euro-American allies most often seeing use against asymmetrical threats and stability issues within Europe and in the Middle-East rather than against Russia. The fact that European nations even floated the idea of having Russia join NATO (and subsequently rebuffed by Russia) should be plenty of indication that NATO was being viewed and utilized in a different role.

Russia joining NATO? That is mad. It is impossible for Russia to join NATO, and that is known in the West too. The idea of Russia joining NATO was never a serious one.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Belgrade says ''hi''.


Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.

Which has always struck me as odd, considering the openly neo nazi government there.


I mean, seriously, genocide is good unless it's non-jewish Russians? Because that's what I'm carrying away from this comparison.

Well, the West was perfectly fine when the Croatians started their little ethnic cleansing operations against the Serbs... Apparently genocide is only bad if the victims are US allies.

And Serbian war crimes in no way change the fact that the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was illegal and broke all international laws. Not a very good example by those who falsely pretend to regard international law so highly... It seems that international law only is valid when in favour of the US.
A case could have been made if Yugoslavia was the only example, but alas, it is not.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.

When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".

It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.

It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.

If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.

If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.

The West does not want to destroy Russia, it just wants Russia to be not a rival to its interests. The West thought it could control Russia and keep it down through supporting the Jeltsin mafia. It could not.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.

NATO did not have to accept those countries.
Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.

That argument kinda destroys your complaints that the US is breaking international law. After all, they're a great power, no?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Well, the West was perfectly fine when the Croatians started their little ethnic cleansing operations against the Serbs... Apparently genocide is only bad if the victims are US allies.

And Serbian war crimes in no way change the fact that the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was illegal and broke all international laws. Not a very good example by those who falsely pretend to regard international law so highly... It seems that international law only is valid when in favour of the US.
A case could have been made if Yugoslavia was the only example, but alas, it is not.

Well, one, they were actually OK with all of it until Anderson Cooper went there with a film team, since the networks were doing a hands off on it, and started shoving pictures of it on John Q Smith's television every night.

Two, Genocide is genocide. (and I'm not an American, so again, the US allies jibe does nothing) And the US was backing all sides of that war with the knowing help of Russia. Or, at least the vory v zakone. Whitlock had a cozy little deal with the US state department going, that let him sell US and Russian gear to all three sides. When the state department handed it down that he wasn't to sell to the Serbs anymore, he paid for a very sharp attorney to get a guy named Summers paroled. Summers was doing time in PA for a double homicide but had connections to the vory. So, Whitlock used this guy as his connection, and sold US, Chinese, and Russian gear to the vory's guy, who was somehow connected to the Russian military, who turned around and sold it to the Serbs.

Ain't it nifty how war profiteering works? No matter who won, the US and Russia made money.

So, no, nobody's hands are clean in Bosnia. but some are dirtier than others.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.

Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.

So? Russia's army is only a shade of the power of the Red Army. Its logical Europe's armies became smaller too.

Europe's armies have shrunken far more in proportion to both the manpower of the Russian Federation's forces, as well as relative to the size of their own populations. Hell, the German army has *lost* more people in a single day in some wars over the last 100 years than it currently has in uniform.

And what gigantic non-state assymetrical threats did NATO face that required a full defensive military alliance? Did the US really need the rest of NATO to fight a bunch of Afghan goat herders?

NATO is there to defend against an array of threats, conventional and unconventional. Just because there doesn't happen to be a major threat at any one particular moment isn't any reason to disband when there may be in the future and the existence of the framework provides additional connection and integration between the member nations. NATO has done much to better integrate Europe. It's not perfect, but having Western Europe engaged in cooperative defense is better than them slaughtering each other by the millions as they did in the fifty years beforehand.

And why did NATO expand eastwards despite promises not to, if not to contain Russia?

Because the nations there wanted to join and did not find their interest's aligned with Russia's? Many of these Eastern European nations are worried about Russian attack/intervention above any other threat and thus find NATO membership important, particularly thus far as as NATO membership has proven an effective deterrent against direct Russian action. While Russia has engaged itself in Georgia and Ukraine, it hasn't in places like Estonia or Latvia.

Ultimately, It's not like NATO was invading these places and forcing them into NATO, they came and asked for membership. NATO wasn't going to turn them away just...because.

If NATO is not a threat to Russia, than why is it doing such a great job at looking like one?

Mostly because Russia is looking for one to distract from internal issues. Pretty bog-standard political mechanism. Russia isn't the only one to engage in this sort of thing (just look at the US presidential race and some of the candidates and their stances on certain groups, or North Korea for literally everything), but Russia is most certainly engaged in heavily leveraging such tactics.

Now, that's not to say that one can't understand the fear that a foreign security cooperative around one's borders can cause. That's something that anyone can get. However, NATO is probably the least belligerent border threat that Russia has ever had.

Like what?
Russians were all enthousiastic about the West back when the USSR fell. Russia was completely willing to become part of the West and adopt capitalism.
But all capitalism and the West gave Russia was a complete collapse of society. Incompetent leaders destroyed everything, and the West just stood by and cheered Yeltsin on, meanwhile bombing Serbia, supporting terrorism and seperatism in Russian and former Soviet territories and generally closing in on historical Russian interests everywhere.

Well that's certainly a rather stilted viewpoint. It's not the West's fault that Russia's leaders and systems were corrupt and incompetent. Russian institutions have always had problems, that's been an issue for hundreds of years, and caused the disintegration of more than one Russian government. They're not the only ones with such problems, but that doesn't mean that such are "the West's" fault. Collapse of Russian society was a result of decades of institutional mismanagement and poor economic concentration on the part of the Soviet Union that simply all came apart at the same time. Planned economy or Capitalism, those issues were long coming.

Now, as I said earlier, you can fault the US and some Western nations for many of their actions during that time, absolutely, But the vast majority of Russia's problems were of its own making and nobody else was, or is, able to fix them for Russia.

As for supporting terrorism and separatism, against post-soviet Russia, how exactly do you mean? Do you mean by recognizing breakaway regions like Georgia, Estonia, etc? Or something more nefarious?

This betrayal changed Putin from the pro-West guy he once was into very much anti-West, and it also destroyed the positive view of the West with most other Russians. You are dismissing it as the West having done some stupid things that have not been helpful. It is much, much worse than that. The West was the enemy during Soviet times, but unlike now it was never hated by the ordinary people. The amount of hostility to the West in all parts of Russian society is something completely new. I'll leave you to figure out how adoration changed into hatred so quickly.

Things turn out gakky and people look for someone to blame and need a scapegoat. A pretty common response. While I can see where many US/EU actions would honk off the Russian people, in some cases rightfully so, there's a rather large degree of scapegoating. The pattern we're seeing in Russia has been seen in other nations before (even in the US), sometimes with unfortunate consequences.

Ultimately, what really should be more looked at is, does anyone think Putin is going to hop off the PM-to-President-and-back-round-again train? That cycle needs fuel to sustain it, and an external scapegoat is high-octane.

Even if the West did not have the intentions, it appeared to the Russians that they took every opportunity to take Russia down. The West should be less self-righteous and more sensitive about Russian feelings.

In this I would agree. Absolutely, you are correct, and the US/EU have done some absolutely bone-headed things.

It does not matter if the Baltic states asked for membership or not. NATO made a huge mistake in accepting it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But Russia can't dictate the foreign agreements of other nations (and yes, the same can be directed toward the US), and It has thus far proven effective in protecting these nations from events like those in Ukraine or Georgia. In some respects, it was also repayment for promises made, and broken, decades earlier (same with Poland in that regard). Ultimately, these areas also are not something that would be difficult for Russia to defend against or overwhelm in days in a conventional conflict.

Ultimately, there are some different things that could have been done that would have resulted in far better outcomes for all involved, but it's also not all one sided here.

To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.

Does the situation change if the 'loner kid' is one of the strongest kids in school and has a nuclear bomb?

He's *one* of the strongest, but will only engage with others as if he's *the* strongest. That's the problem.

As for nuclear bombs, sure he has nuclear bombs, but so do half the other kids, and the only relevancy they have is for that "mass suicide" existential deterrent threat, aside from that they don't really mean squat.

Russia joining NATO? That is mad. It is impossible for Russia to join NATO, and that is known in the West too. The idea of Russia joining NATO was never a serious one.

Primarily because Russia rebuffed it publicly before anyone could ever even discuss such proposals internally. It likely would have been a very long term process, but was something discussed by every major western power at some point.

Now, as I said earlier, you can fault the US and some Western nations for many of their actions during that time, absolutely, But the vast majority of Russia's problems were of its own making and nobody else was, or is, able to fix them for Russia.

Most problems because USSR disbanded and it's ruined multi-polar world. Now we have USA hehemony. Europe needed war in Lybia and Syria? Now it suffer from regurees flood. Some say that USSR disbaning saved it from civil war. But the war did not happen anyway? Chechnya, Dagestan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Abhaziya, Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine.

NATO has a serious advantage over Russia. This could be tolerated if NATO supports the balance of power in the world and to avoid casualties. But it makes more wars.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Most problems because USSR disbanded and it's ruined multi-polar world. Now we have USA hehemony.

For a time, sure. The US may end up reigning another thirty years or so, maybe less, maybe a little more, but probably not a whole lot more. The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.

Europe needed war in Lybia and Syria? Now it suffer from regurees flood.

Yup, though the US also shares some blame in that, though in many ways these things are part of the continuing fallout of the monumentally stupid decisions made in the wake of the first world war. Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.

Some say that USSR disbaning saved it from civil war. But the war did not happen anyway? Chechnya, Dagestan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Abhaziya, Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine.

Indeed, but there was no way to hold the USSR together, the way things had gone, and the existing conflicts are, by 20th century and previous Russian standards, relatively small skirmishes, as opposed to a repeat of the Red vs White civil war.

NATO has a serious advantage over Russia. This could be tolerated if NATO supports the balance of power in the world and to avoid casualties. But it makes more wars.

By what standard to you measure that? Is NATO perfect? No. Has NATO made mistakes? Absolutely.

However, between NATO and the EU & Schengen area frameworks, Europe is not massacring itself the way it did in my grandparent's and great-grandparent's times. What conflicts have arisen have been tiny by comparison and not between NATO members. This is something to be thankful for.

Now, say what you will about Serbia, the situation there was hardly started by NATO, and the Serbs have almost made a national hobby of pissing off great powers. Sometimes it works out for them, sometimes it backfires, but they really like rolling those dice.

The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.

I afraid, that CIA will work to support Chinese local separatists. China consist of many nations, like USSR was.
India? Many people so poor. And archaic cast system.
Maybe Brazil will go power. But Brazil so pro-american.
I wonder why Putin don't try to unite with others. We lost many allies. Even Belarus looking towards West.

Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.

supported much
1) Air controlled by NATO
2) Informational war
3) Blocking Ghadaffie and Asad suppliy lines
4) Supplying rebels with weapons and ammo
5) Special operations
6) Blocking money of Ghadaffi in Switzerland
Though I'm not sure what's going on in Syria. USA bombed both Asad and ISIL. Turkey (NATO) fight against Kurds. And USA supports Kurds? FSA fights against ISIL and against Kurds, who fights against Asad (why they can't ally?)? Iraq supports ISIL by doing nothing and loosing weapons to them?
I thought, Asad doomed, but he's keep fighting.

Indeed, but there was no way to hold the USSR together, the way things had gone, and the existing conflicts are, by 20th century and previous Russian standards, relatively small skirmishes, as opposed to a repeat of the Red vs White civil war.

Referendum before 1991 showed that the majority does not want to dissolve USSR (it happen duiring Glasnost' time, when everybody has more speech freedom than Russia today). Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine can leave and others stay. Eltsin did it in so hurry. Why three people should decide for all?

By what standard to you measure that? Is NATO perfect? No. Has NATO made mistakes? Absolutely.

I think, it's not mistakes. It looks like some evil plan. USSR also was instrument in that plan. Shevarnadze (Soviet minister) ordered to bomb Afghanistan civilians (many-many died). It was not a military or political necessity. Then who needed it? Reptilians?

 Freakazoitt wrote:

The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.

I afraid, that CIA will work to support Chinese local separatists. China consist of many nations, like USSR was.

China, despite having its various minorities, is in less danger of this sort of thing. The Soviet Union was built largely upon the old Russian Empire, and has always had ethnic groups that never liked being under the control of Moscow, and the size of the territory made it much harder for a central government to control everything. China is less ethnically diverse than the Soviet Union was, and, while certainly not a small nation, is much smaller than the former USSR and easier to control in general.

I think also you're giving the CIA wayyyyyy too much credit. As much as I'd like them to be the slick spy agency that's able to overturn opposing governments on a whim with skill and daring, they're an organization made of normal people that feths up far more often than it succeeds, and really isn't very good at those sorts of things, particularly as its past attempts have almost always turned out, well, poorly.

India? Many people so poor. And archaic cast system.

Right now? Yes. Absolutely. However, they're growing at a stellar rate. There's a lot of parallels with the US in the late 19th century, made up largely of rural poor with major ethnic divisions, but with tons of growth and potential. Look at where they were 30 years ago, look the great leaps they've made. In another thirty years who knows where they'll be.

Maybe Brazil will go power. But Brazil so pro-american.

Possibly, they're another good candidate.

I wonder why Putin don't try to unite with others. We lost many allies. Even Belarus looking towards West.

Well, he's cozying up a lot to the Chinese, the problem is that the Chinese are acting as economic loan sharks, getting terms and concessions from Russia that western concerns could only dream of. As for Belarus, I'd be looking at Ukraine as asking if I were next, though the EU isn't so hot on Belarus's perpetual president either...

Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.

supported much
1) Air controlled by NATO
2) Informational war
3) Blocking Ghadaffie and Asad suppliy lines
4) Supplying rebels with weapons and ammo
5) Special operations
6) Blocking money of Ghadaffi in Switzerland

Yup, all however after such revolts already started. This is standard run of the mill great power mucking about, not much different than the kind of shennanigans that the US, Russia, UK, France, etc have engaged in for decades of not centuries around the world.

Though I'm not sure what's going on in Syria.

I think the ultimate point is that nobody does

USA bombed both Asad and ISIL. Turkey (NATO) fight against Kurds. And USA supports Kurds? FSA fights against ISIL and against Kurds, who fights against Asad (why they can't ally?)? Iraq supports ISIL by doing nothing and loosing weapons to them?
I thought, Asad doomed, but he's keep fighting.

Asad isn't doomed because everyone that hates him also hates the other factions just as much . The problem is that many of these states were created by arbitrary lines on maps in Europe almost a hundred years ago without regard to the realities of the actual peoples on the ground, and these states largely were only ever held together by force in the first place.

Referendum before 1991 showed that the majority does not want to dissolve USSR (it happen duiring Glasnost' time, when everybody has more speech freedom than Russia today). Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine can leave and others stay. Eltsin did it in so hurry. Why three people should decide for all?

Keep in mind that many of the Republics did not participate (and those were the ones with populations overwhelmingly against staying in the USSR). There's also some questions about the numbers. That said, the states that wanted to stay largely still retain good relations with Moscow. I think the bigger issue is that it was easier for Moscow to let them go than try and retain them, much like a business downsizing unprofitable operations, and the fear of another coup attempt in the latter half of 1991 led a lo many running from what they saw as a sinking ship and/or local power brokers looking to establish their own fortunes.

I think, it's not mistakes. It looks like some evil plan. USSR also was instrument in that plan. Shevarnadze (Soviet minister) ordered to bomb Afghanistan civilians (many-many died). It was not a military or political necessity. Then who needed it? Reptilians?

I think you give too much credit to background operators and military prowess. Avoiding civilian casualties is basically impossible In some cases in some wars it was obviously ordered, but I think in more recent conflicts such are typically accidents or byproducts. Simply from a "war fighting" standpoint, bombing civilians is usually a very poor use of resources, it doesn't accomplish anything of military value typically, and worsens one's position politically with other powers, and usually stiffens your enemy's will to fight.

Been a while but...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34893493

This has the potential to degenerate spectacularly.

It depends on the response of Ukrainian authorities. If they repair the pylons quickly, nothing will matter. Crimea is used to power and water shortages by now.
If it takes longer, they might have to go annex a power station

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It depends on the response of Ukrainian authorities. If they repair the pylons quickly, nothing will matter. Crimea is used to power and water shortages by now.
If it takes longer, they might have to go annex a power station

Well, according to the Ukrainians, they're being kept away from the break by dispossessed Crimean tartars.

If this thread is alive again, then hell here's an article which cropped up since something was last posted here.

TLDR: For those who have been catching up on the war and wondering why the Ukrainians are driving about in things reminiscent of what Mad Max would have looked like if it was filmed in the old Soviet Union, there's the reason. Shame that the Ukrainians are coming out with a load of top of the line gear which will never see the local battlefields. Rather, for a country which was one of the largest military hardware scrappers post SU, they're putting those resources to good use.

...The joke then being that for all the Russians still waffle on about the separatists sourcing their top of the line gear from Ukraine, you're more likely to see the loyalists driving about in modernized Cold War junk than the other side. :/

Ukraine’s Malyshev tank plant can produce new tanks – the Opolot-M, based on the Soviet T-80 - but according to Serhiy Pinkas, the deputy head of state defense holding Ukroboronprom, it makes more economic sense to sell these abroad and use the money to renovate the old T-64s. "It's more efficient to export the Oplot than to use it in the war, Pinkas said in an interview with the Bloomberg news agency in June. “It sells for $4.9 million overseas. It's better to sell it and use the money to fix and modernize 10 T-64s."
According to Ukroboronprom’s official website, by the end of 2015, Kyiv Armored Vehicles Plant will have produced four times as many tanks and other military equipment as it did in 2014. The plant’s director, Vladyslav Lysytsya, wrote on Ukroboronprom official website that the plant has already constructed 25 tanks and 53 armored troop carriers this year. “Even at the moment, output is greater than it was last year,” Lysytsya said.
With the new work, Kyiv Armored Vehicles Plant is getting more productive and less corrupt, Pinkas said in a statement on the Ukroboronprom website.
“There will be no excuse anymore for delaying the production of new equipment, and for corrupt scandals,” he said. “The plant has now become one of the best within the whole concern.”

It sound like they...

Must construct additional pylons.









That joke made me feel bad.

Following on from my last bit of guff. The Russian gear's par the course for what the rest of the world's using. What the Ukrainian's are pumping out of their converted armour workshops can be a lot more interesting.

They've been having a tough time with snipers in urban areas knocking out the optics of vehicles. The solution? Make a sealed tin can which uses cameras for LOS. IIRC the Libyans did the same thing (though I think that plant's intent is to pump out these things).



Yes those are twin mortar turrets.

The Israelis came out with a similar looking APC on the same chassis years ago too. Odd how the Russian's attempts at turning T-series chassis into APCs don't look anything like either.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

They've been having a tough time with snipers in urban areas knocking out the optics of vehicles. The solution? Make a sealed tin can which uses cameras for LOS. IIRC the Libyans did the same thing (though I think that plant's intent is to pump out these things).

Germans have done the same thing with one of the more recent Leopard 2 variants. Thing's studded with cameras to give the commander a 360 view without having to risk getting his head blown off.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It sound like they...

Must construct additional pylons.









That joke made me feel bad.

It shouldn't. It was awesome. Have an adorable clip of a bunny in a bath tub.